Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor in SAS is an appointment for
an indefinite term and thus must be made only after a very careful
evaluation of the candidate and of the needs and plans of the department
and of SAS. Persons recommended for promotion to tenure should show
evidence of significant scholarship, as recognized by specialists in the
appropriate field of study both inside and outside the University.
Candidates must exhibit breadth of intellectual interests relevant to the
academic needs and plans of their department and the School of Arts and
Sciences and effective teaching and service to the department and to the
University.

No search is required when a promotion within the Standing Faculty is
considered. However, the Affirmative Action Officer must be convinced
that equitable consideration for promotion has been given to all other
untenured faculty members in the department with equal or greater number
of years in the same rank, including female and minority faculty
members.

When a department decides to make a formal review to consider promotion
from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor, it must request the
candidate to nominate up to three persons from outside the
University to serve as external reviewers. In addition, the department
should nominate at least eight persons to serve as external
reviewers. These reviewers should be persons selected for their national
and international
scholarly standing as well as for their knowledge and judgment of
the field of
the candidate. The names of the reviewers nominated by the department
should not be made known to the candidate. The letter that requests the
evaluation will be sent from the department, but must conform closely in
spirit to the sample letter contained herein. The letter must request
comparisons which are as quantitative as possible and must not "lead" the
reviewer by suggesting, for example, that the department wishes to promote
the person being reviewed. A sample of the suggested letter (SAS Form
02-18) is enclosed. The actual letter is to be reviewed by the
appropriate Associate Dean before it is sent.

The Provost's Staff Conference requires six external letters in the
dossier in addition to any written by reviewers nominated by the
candidate. If fewer than six letters are received from reviewers
proposed by the Department, the Department must ask for authorization of
additional reviewers to ensure that the minimum of six letters is
received.

When a qualifying events occurs, the following members of the faculty are eligible for an extension of the corresponding probationary period: (a) non-tenured members of the standing faculty --the tenure probationary period; (b) clinician-educators, members of the research faculty – the promotion review period . The qualifying events that trigger eligibility for an extension are:

a child is born, adopted, or placed for foster care, into the faculty member's household and the faculty member is the primary or co-equal parental caregiver

by reason of a serious health condition (as defined in Section 2611(11) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) persisting for a substantial portion of the period for which the extension is sought, the faculty member is required to act as the primary or co-equal parental caregiver for a child, or the primary caregiver for a spouse, or domestic partner (as defined in the domestic partner benefits policy); or

by reason of a serious health condition (as defined in Section 2611(11) of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) persisting for a substantial portion of the period for which the extension is sought, the faculty member is unable to perform the functions of his or her position.

In the event that both spouses or domestic partners (as defined in the domestic partner benefits policy) are members of the standing faculty, or clinician-educators, or the research faculty, both spouses and domestic partners are covered by sections A.1 and A.2 of this section.

The length of each extension shall be one year. The faculty member shall complete the Notification of Extension form and transmit it to the Provost’s office, with copies to the department chair and Dean, within one year of the birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Deans and department chairs are responsible for ensuring that all faculty eligible for an extension receive the Notification of Extension form.

Extensions of the tenure probationary period shall be without prejudice to the obligation of the University to provide faculty members with twelve-months' notice of termination.

When a faculty member who has taken an extension under this section is being reviewed for tenure or promotion to associate professor, the dean, in his/her letter soliciting evaluations from external reviewers, should explicitly state that the candidate has taken an extension pursuant to this policy. The dean should further state that the policy of the University of Pennsylvania is to evaluate the productivity of each candidate who has been granted an extension as if he or she had been in probationary status for the normal duration, so that the candidate is not penalized for having received the extension.

Upon being notified of a faculty member’s application for a one-year extension of the probationary period, the University will approve the application unless specific and compelling factors require its denial. The action of the Provost shall be communicated in writing to the faculty member and shall specify the revised date of tenure review and termination date of the probationary period and (in the event that the request is denied) shall specify the grounds for the denial.

For untenured members of the standing faculty on the tenure track, the total probationary period cannot exceed ten years. For assistant professors on the clinician-educator track, and assistant professors on the research track, the total probationary period cannot exceed thirteen years.

The tenured members of the department should evaluate the
candidate for promotion to tenure in terms of his or her accomplishments
to date and potential for continued professional growth in both
scholarship and teaching. The Chair's summary of this evaluation should
include both the positive and negative aspects of the discussions. The
Chair should comment on the candidate's scholarly achievement to date,
potential for continued growth, teaching record, and other contributions
to the department and to the University. A description of the academic
program of the department should be included, along with a clear
indication of how the candidate fits within that program. The priority of
the candidate's subfield relative to other aspects of the program should
be made clear. The Chair's letter must include the formal vote of the
faculty on the recommendation including the manner in which the vote was
taken. Positive votes, negative votes, abstentions, and absences must
all be included in this statement. No dossier will be considered by the
Personnel Committee if it lacks an explicit statement of the formal
vote. Minority opinion should be summarized in
the Chair's letter or in a separate letter from a faculty member
designated by the Chair. Faculty members on leave or temporarily absent
should be given an opportunity to express their views.

Curriculum Vitae of the Candidate

The candidate is responsible for preparing an up-to-date
curriculum vitae which includes scholarly accomplishments and plans,
teaching experience at the University (course numbers and descriptions,
numbers of students, dissertation supervision, graduate student placement,
and undergraduate independent study supervision), and administrative and
committee work. All work published and in progress should be included in
the bibliography.

Candidates must provide inclusive pagination for all
bibliographical citations in the curriculum vitae (exact page numbers for
articles, number of pages for books and monographs). In addition, the
Chair should annotate the curriculum vitae or append to it a statement
that will enable readers of the dossier: (1) to distinguish the journals
in which the candidate's work appears that are refereed from those that
are not; and (2) to identify the writings that are primarily by the
candidate in cases of multiple authorship. The Chair should identify the
most significant scholarly journals in the field and indicate the protocol
for the field with regard to the order of names on jointly authored works.
Include all professional reviews of books written by the candidate. No
dossier for promotion to Associate Professor will be considered by the
Personnel Committee if it lacks this information. Two copies of each
major publication, accompanied by a check list (SAS Form 99-20) to ensure
their return, must be included.

When a candidate for promotion has, had, or will have grant support from
outside agencies, the Department should use SAS Forms 99-28, 99-29, and
99-30 to elaborate.

Personal Statements

The candidate is encouraged to provide a personal statement(s)
detailing research, teaching, and service approaches and goals.
Typically, this statement--or these statements--greatly strengthen the
understanding of the candidate in the various stages of review.

Although evaluations of teaching must accompany any recommendation
for promotion, the evaluation in the case of promotion to Associate
Professor with tenure must be especially thorough. The dossier must
contain all available School or departmental course evaluations. If small
advanced graduate courses have not been evaluated, that fact should be
noted in the teaching chronicle. Student comments from the School or
departmental evaluation forms should be included. If the number of
comments is large, a representative sample should be included together
with a statement concerning the method of selection.

Letters should be solicited from teaching assistants who have
worked under the supervision of the candidate. If this number is large, a
sampling of TA's from different courses will be sufficient. Letters
should also be solicited from current or former students. Please do an
appropriate random solicitation, indicate in the dossier how the
solicitation was carried out, and include all letters received. Precede
such letters by a sample of the soliciting letter (see SAS
Forms 99-26 and 99-27 for suggested letters). Material
should be organized to indicate the source of all evaluations, and whether
the students are graduate or undergraduate students.

Letters may also be included from faculty who have observed the
candidate's teaching, worked with the candidate in jointly taught courses,
or served in a teaching mentoring role for the candidate. The particular
relation should be made explicit.

The Chair is responsible for providing enough information so that
the teaching data can be appropriately assessed. A departmental analysis
of the teaching data in a format that is consistent from case to case
within the department would be helpful. Average departmental ratings and
plots of instructor quality ratings versus class size can be helpful. In
interpreting the teaching evaluation of a faculty member teaching a
specific course, it might be helpful to know how those ratings compare
with the ratings of other faculty who have taught the same course.

At least three letters from University faculty from within the
department and, if appropriate, from other departments or schools must be
included. The report of an ad hoc departmental committee may be
substituted for individual letters from department faculty.

Letters from External Reviewers

The list of approved external reviewers (SAS Form 99-17) and a
sample of the Chair's standard letter requesting the reviews should
precede the letters. Non-respondents should be noted on the list. The
letters should be included in the order in which
the names appear on this list. Other external letters may be included
after those from reviewers on the approved list. If these latter letters
are to be given weight by the reviewing committees, some indication of the
credentials of the reviewers and of the circumstances under which they
appear should be included.

Notification of Candidate

It is the responsibility of the Chair to notify the candidate in writingof the official action taken before June 30 of the penultimate year of
the candidate's probationary term. If promotion has not been approved,
the Chair should notify the candidate with a letter similar to that
suggested in SAS Form 99-21. A copy of the letter countersigned by the
candidate must be sent to the Dean's Office together with a Faculty Equal
Opportunity Compliance Statement (SAS Form 99-5).

Procedures when the Department does not Recommend Promotion

After either a formal (external) or an informal (internal) review of the
candidate's qualifications, the department may decide, for either
scholarly or programmatic reasons, that it does not wish to recommend
that the candidate be promoted to Associate Professor. In this event, a
formal recommendation that the candidate not be promoted must be
forwarded to the SAS Dean no later than the beginning of the spring
semester of the candidate's sixth year as an Assistant Professor.

Important note: the deadline for action before the end of the sixth
year of service may be modified if the tenure probationary period is
extended according to the University's Policy on Extension of the Tenure
Probationary Period (see Section III.C.3.).

Dossier Prepared for Dean

In general, one copy of all documentation which was considered in
making the decision should be forwarded to the Dean. The dossier should
include:

Chair's Letter

The Chair's letter should summarize the discussion in the
department and state the reasons that the department decided not to
recommend promotion. The formal vote of the faculty members must be
included. Dissenting opinion, if present, should either be summarized in
the Chair's letter or in a separate letter from a faculty member
designated by the Chair.

Curriculum Vitae of Candidate

The curriculum vitae should be presented in a manner similar to
that presented for a positive recommendation.

Evaluation of Teaching

All teaching evaluations considered by the department in making
its recommendation should be included. All available course evaluations,
whether formally considered or not, should be included. Evaluation by
faculty peers is encouraged.

Letters from University Faculty

Any letters from University faculty, either in the department or
in other departments or schools, that were considered in the evaluation by
the department should be included.

External Letters

All letters from external reviewers, if any, that were pertinent
to the evaluation should be included. If these were solicited from an
approved list, the list and a sample of the Chair's letter of solicitation
should be included. If the letters were written by external scholars not
on the approved list, the standing of the writers and the occasion for the
letter should be explained.

Documentation of Affirmative Action Procedures

Notification of Candidate

It is the responsibility of the Chair to notify the candidate in
writing of the official action taken before June 30 of the penultimate
year of the candidate's probationary term. A letter similar to that
suggested in SAS Form 99-21 should be used for this notification. A copy
of the letter countersigned by the candidate must be sent to the Dean's
Office together with a Faculty Equal Opportunity Compliance Statement (SAS
Form 99-5).

Appeal of Unfavorable Recommendation

If the department does not recommend promotion, the candidate may
appeal the case to the Dean. The candidate should present, in support of
the appeal, whatever information he or she believes has either been
overlooked or inappropriately evaluated. If the Dean believes that the
department has not considered all aspects of the case, the Dean may ask
the department to reconsider the case. The Dean also has the option of
forwarding the dossier to the Personnel Committee without the endorsement
of the department. In this event, which should be extraordinarily rare,
the Dean must inform the Chair of the department of this action and the
reasons for it.